I think I got the impression from reading part 1 of the essay that Alexander Pope is a little full of himself. He is 21 years old, and he seems to think that he knows it all. He puts down critics, yet isn't that what he's doing? Is he being hypocritical? There's not doubt that Pope has a lot of wit. But I guess I'm just surprised at how much confidence Pope has! He says that you are born a poet or born a critic. Obviously, he must believe that he was born to be a poet. It was said that Pope wasn't too well received after publishing this essay. That doesn't surprise me.
Did anyone else get the impression of Pope being presumptuous? Does he have a right to be? - KGa-c Feb 27, 2008
He's more than a little full of himself. He's completely full of himself. He basically told us in part one that we have no right to judge poetry because we are stupid. By doing that, he has attempted to shut down any criticism of his essay/poem. His complex style showed his self-centeredness, implying something like "Look how much smarter I am than you! I'm writing in a way you could never use or understand, so praise me! PRAISE ME!"
The thing is, he sort of has a right to be so full of himself. People have said that he was a natural poet and writer, as well as a genius. I saw that through this poem/essay. I do not know of anyone who can write 700+ lines in the same meter and in constantly rhyming couplets and understand what he or she is doing.- JHe-c Feb 27, 2008
I absolutely think Pope is full of himself. In class today, we discussed how young he was (in his early twenties) when he wrote the essay, and yet he criticizes other "young" readers for being pretentious enough to think that they have the right to judge someone else's work. It certainly takes a pretty conceited person to say that, and I have no doubt that Pope was full of himself. JHe, I'm not sure I agree with you entirely; I don't think that Pope has some divine right to be pretentious just because people claimed he was some kind of genius. I have no doubt in my mind that Pope was extremely intelligent. It becomes very obvious just how bright he was when one reads the essay. However, I still don't think he has the right to tell other people not to judge when he is technically just as inexperienced as some of the people he is criticizing.
This still doesn't negate the fact that I think the essay was an extremely well-written and intelligent piece of literature. - MRo-c Feb 27, 2008
I agree that, in many parts of the essay, Alexander Pope sounded extremely arrogant. Like all of you said, he was 21 when he wrote the essay, which seems just a little young to be analyzing wit, nature, and the bigger parts of life that affect all people. I was just wondering, but comparing him to a 21-year-old today, which would be a junior/senior in college, he talks as though he is much older, much more learned, and much more experienced when he's only been around for two decades! Half of me thinks that he is trying to talk as greater philosophers before him did, yet it was very natural to them. The way he speaks calls attention to himself in great amounts, not to mention he was trying to inflate the importance of the topic in his essay. I, too, don't think that he has the right to tell other people that they can or cannot analyze and judge. - bzw-c Feb 27, 2008
I agree with John, Pope really is completely full of himself. I mean sure he is a brilliant young man who can write poems like this, but still he is critcizing critics, that's hypocrisy. I think he does deserve the ability to do this because he is demonstrating that he can criticize and write good poetry at the same time in this essay. I just think that if he had more perspective or maybe self-control, then he would be above stooping down to the critics level and point his finger back and make fun of them. It all seems kind of like playground namecalling in a sophisticated, 18th century poetic kind of way.- mka-c Feb 27, 2008
Although, I don't completely agree with everything that I've read thus far in the essay (or really understood everything), I think Pope's ideas were similar to those of his time. He lived during the time of enlightenment where nature was believed to rule reason. Although, some disagreed with his writings, I'm sure that there were many people who agreed with what he was saying otherwise we would not be reading this in class. Much of what he says is not wrong, we just misinterpret it as conceited because he says it in a very poetic way making it appear like he is insulting the reader. However, he makes good points when he says that good poets and critics are rare. Also, there is a lot of ideologies from the enlightenment found in the essay like nature makes no mistakes and rules are discovered not created. I just don't see why people think he is conceited because he hasn't said anything that insulting. - KSm-c Feb 28, 2008
Pope is being a little presumptuous, but he kind of has to be. At the time that he wrote this, he was a 21 year old nobody who was looking to garner some press in literature circles; what better way is there to gain attention by being inflammatory. He wrote the way he did to rile people up and get them talking about him. I hate to do this, but in a way it is comparable to the rap feuds of the 20th century: when there is an up-n-coming rapper, one of the best ways for him to get his name out is by feuding or dissing a famous rapper. Doing this gets him mentioned in one of the famous rapper's songs, which gets him press and name recognition. The same concept is behind Pope's critique of writing of the day: he may not have the experience or credentials many of the writer's he is bashing do, but by attacking them he is at least getting his name on the radar. - dsU-c Feb 28, 2008
I would definitely agree that Pope is being slightly arrogant. When I was reading Part I on my own, I was getting pretty confused because he seemed to be judging and yet condemning those who judge at the same time. At first I doubted that I had even interpreted it correctly, but then we went over it in class. Then, when Brother Tom told us that he was only twenty-one years old when he wrote this poem, I grew even more confused. Who is he to say all this? He always mentions good poetry and good criticism, but through that, he is inevitably judging them. I almost wanted to throw his own words back at him!
We discussed this in class a bit, and Brother Tom said that Pope realized that by writing this, Pope knew he was going to ignite a reaction. But Brother Tom suggested that maybe that was what Pope was looking for. What do you guys think about that? Did Pope write this "Essay" looking for the backlash? - Kho-c Feb 28, 2008
When arguing that Pope is an arrogant hippocrite, as many of you are doing, how can his age be a factor at all? Is his age the subject of the poem? Does age really affect his perception of poetry in the world? Is there a rule that says, "Unless you are thirty, you cannot comment on wrongdoing in the world"? The answer to all of these is no. Sure, his age might affect how he says things, but not what he says, nor does it have anything to do with the argument he is making. Pope isn't really arrogant, just annoyingly (to some people) right. Think about some people considered "arrogant" in today's world: the Pope (as in Benedict XVI not our author) for comments about the shortcomings of other religions, Bill Belichick for his handling of the press, Rush Limbaugh for strong, inflammatory arguments. These people aren't really arrogant, just right. They come across as arrogant because they aren't afraid to be different, strong, and at times inflammatory with what they say. I believe in that way Pope is very similar to them.
Dsu's example of an up and coming rapper is absolutely absurd. Nowhere does he diss anyone in particular. Also, what do experience and credentials have anything to do with making a clever observation about society? Could a young person not make a correct observation about his surroundings? - PSp-c
Oh yeah, he's totally full of himself. He's young and probably not all that experienced, but he must have something to back him up because he was highly acclaimed and very well-known as a writer. He deals out a lot of insults, but he's pretty witty. And like John said, Pope has good reason to be conceited. He is a genius, he has incredible wit and strong ideas, and seriously it has to be difficult to write 700 lines in constant rhyme. I find it challenging to think of rhymes for poems that are over 20 lines, and he's basically a rockstar with it and never breaks form or anything. And he's not writing about poetic topics; he's writing an essay in poem form--that's got to be more difficult to rhyme. - dru-c Feb 28, 2008
I think at this point, Pope doesn't really have anything to lose. He is the rookie and he's trying to make something of himself to the world of poetry. And if that's what he was looking for, then he definitely got the attention he deserved. He was arrogant in writing this, but I think this poem is credited also for his incredible poetic skill at such a young age. He needed something that was going to grab people's attention if he was to be put on the map, and what better way to grab a person's attention than to criticize him? - LDo-c Feb 28, 2008 I do think that Pope was arrogant in writing this poem. PSp mentioned that his age isn't that important and that is shouldn't make a difference. I agree that although he was young that doesn't mean that he didn't have anything valuable or wise to say. I think it is just surprising that this was his first recognized work. He appears to be very full of himself not because he was young, but because he was not experienced. It shows that he was very confident in himself if he was willing to proclaim such bold ideas about what makes a good critic and poet while he was not known for being either. You have to be very sure of yourself if you are going to criticize famous poets and critics who are well known for their abilities. I was wondering whether he was trying to catch all of the attention that he did with this poem. Maybe he never meant for so many people to read his poem. It seems unlikely, but is it possible that he was just writing down what he thought and not meaning to announce them to large numbers of readers? If he truly wanted to gain attention by writing this essay styled poem it just makes him seem more arrogant. He was a genius and he knew it. - bga-c Feb 28, 2008
I do see Pope as arrogant, and we discussed in class the other day how he did or did not establish a right for himself to write in the manner he does. But when all is [written] and done, I think he has a right to write how he does. After all, his work is honorable, and many famous "quotable couplets" resulted from it even. Instead of saying, "he is only 21 years old and acts as if he has authority . . .," we can say "he is only 21 and can write like this -- wow!" I do see his work as impressive because it is lengthy, but clever, and has various allusions in it. Both the substance and the style could only be crafted by someone with intelligence and skill. What I noticed especially was that this essay / poem (which is a feat in itself) is a good example of rhyming that has a purpose and grasps the readers' attention -- instead of making them 'fall asleep,' as Pope said himself, with expected rhyme. Thus, the piece exhibits true talent. I found the poem a little difficult to read myself, but that was only because good diction and creativity were combined with difficulty.- sfa-c Mar 1, 2008
Pope does come off as if he is a little arrogant, but I think it is just the nature of the way he is writing. His use of the couplet makes it seems as if he is very confident, having the strong rhyme every two lines I think makes it seem a little more arrogant than it actually is. Also I don't see how this essay could be good if he didn't come off as arrogant. If he wasn't sure of himself, and a little bit presumptuous then the essay would have been a waste of space. Besides he really is a good writer, and probably deserves to be. I agree with DSu, he probably just wanted to get noticed, and the easiest way to get ahead is to be pushy, and sure of yourself. - jko-c Mar 10, 2008
Let's be honest here and admit that we're all a little arogant. It's part of being young that we all have a certain arrogance and probably think that we're authorities on things that we're probably not authorities on at all. Pope was just a little older than us, but I believe that we all share somewhat in his arrogance. I think more that he wasn't afraid to speak his exact opinion unlike perhaps an older person who might think to edit himself a little bit and not be as daring or controversial. I think what he was doing was saying something that had to be said because he was right that in order to be a critic one must first be a great author. Still, by being critical or critics, he is himself being a critic and what gives him the right to do that? I know he goes off in the essay and explains what he believes qualifies him, but I still find him to be a bit of a hypocrite. I just feel like his very own definition of what a critic should be stripped him of the right to be a critic because few truly master a craft and such a young age and there is no way Pope had already mastered his craft.- KRi-c Mar 10, 2008
I, like everyone else, think that Pope is extremely arrogant throughout his essay. I agree with Kho, he seems very judgmental considering what his entire essay is about. I can see where you are coming from sfa, that many famous quotes came from his writing, which is amazing at such a young age, but at the time how was he supposed to know how successful this work would be. It seems like he thought highly of himself before he even wrote this essay which kind of annoyed me. I thought that his essay was interesting and got important points across but I don't understand how confident he could be that this work was going to bring him so much fame or how he knew he would have readers quoting his work years and years after he died. - kfr-c Mar 11, 2008
I wonder if the rest of Pope's writings sounded as arrogant as this one did. Some how, I doubt they did. When Pope wrote this, he was young. If he had written his ideas in a format that was less dramatic, I dont think that others would have taken him seriously. Others would say that he is young and question what right he had to say these kinds of things about more experienced writers. When these othere people read his essay, they were probably outraged at Pope's tone. And then they would go to their friends and colleagues and make a fuss about it. Then these friends and colleagues would have to read it for themselves. I am sure this piece circulated quite quickly in a short period of time. Whether others like and agreed with him or not, Pope's work and name were made known. I am sure that his next work that was published was read widely because people were curious to see what he was going to say this time. - MBe-c Mar 12, 2008
As I have previously stated, Pope isn't arrogant, just right (wouldn't the phrase "not arrogant, just right" be a perfect bumper sticker?). And he is not hypocritical, as kri suggests. How is there "no way Pope had already mastered his craft"? Did you not read the poem? If you had never been told his age you never would have said that. He has clearly mastered his craft, anyone with the ability to read can see that, and thus he is not a hypocrite.
And kfr, confidence need not come before results, as you say "how was he supposed to know how successful this work would be" and "I don't understand how confident he could be that this work was going to bring him so much fame or how he knew he would have readers quoting his work years and years after he died." Maybe he wasn't aware of how successful the essay would be, but that is beside the point. He was confident that the work was good, and that's all he needed. Think about it; when a football team gets pumped up for a game, do they say, "Maybe we'll win, who knows since we haven't proven ourselves yet."? No they don't and why can the same theory not apply with poets as well? Also, when you say, "It seems like he thought highly of himself before he even wrote this essay which kind of annoyed me" you are annoyed by the very quality that made this work good. Would it have been good without confidence and brovado? Not really, he wouldn't have been able to say anything with that oomph that he needed. It would have been filled with the weak "I think"s and the "Maybe"s.
And to those who say that he was just trying to get attention...you may be right, in a way. Aren't all poets trying to get attention and notoriety (Emily Dickinson aside)? If he wasn't, what would be the point to writing an essay on criticism? Why is it a fault to want to have your work read. It doesn't make him arrogant, it doesn't make him a hypocrite, it makes him a normal poet with something to say. Anyone who criticizes society as he sees it wants to get his work read by the most people so he can have the most impact. I do not get how wanting notoriety and being arrogant are related at all. With that twisted logic, you could say Robert Frost was arrogant for choosing the road less traveled.- PSp-c
It's funny because my mom teases me and my 21 year old brother sometimes that we are too full of ourselves because we think that we can accomplish anything and do anything with our life. Well, I can bet that Pope was the same way. Maybe he didn't think that dream of skydiving or anything, but he believed in his opinions of criticism and felt that he had the right and the ability to publish his essay. Is it arrogance? I think partially it might be, but I believe that we have the right to say what we believe. I also think that he knew he was going to be receiving a whole slew of criticism, ironically, but that is part of the effect of publishing your work. Yes, I do think he approached the topic a little head strong, but I also give him props for saying what he believes. - ptr-c Mar 13, 2008
Ptr brings up a great point on this issue. He says "I believe that we have the right to say what we believe." Exactly right. Wasn't Pope merely stating what he believed to be true? Arrogance comes when you are overly confident to the point where you think you are better than others when you really are not. Pope's obvious writing skill gives him the right to say what he believes, no matter how inflammatory it might be. He doesn't really even attack a specific person.
Honestly, Pope was soft compared to what some writers have done. Take Catullus for example. In his poem 36 (for some reason the romans numbered their poems instead of entitling them) he humorously berates the work of another poet, Volusius. He actually calls this poet's work (to put it nicely) "papyrus droppings" (though a more accurate translation would be slightly more profane and add bathroom humor to this topic, I will spare you all). In the sixth century B.C., there was actually a poet called Hipponax whose poems were so cruel and arrogant that the subjects of his poems hanged themselves. Pope's essay is not arrogant, just confident and right. - PSp-c
First of all, there is no doubt in my mind that Pope is a brilliant writer. When Brother Tom mentioned that Pope was only 21 years old when he wrote this "Essay on Criticism," my jaw literally dropped. Not to put down young writers, but his writing is so mature, witty, and quotable that I just assumed it was an older man's words. Wow, was I wrong!
Anyways, I did pick up on Pope's extreme confidence in his writing abilities (I found his words to be more witty/entertaining than arrogant per se...but that's just me). However, next to line 67 I did write in my notes: "What give you the right to criticize, Pope? Who are you??" So maybe he did get to me sometimes..
Overall, it is a tough call because some of you seem turned-off by Pope's "arrogance." I, however, find it to be challenging and entertaining; I was not offended by his words. Obviously Pope has a right to say these things because he knows what he's talking about! Who could argue with him? He seems to have everything laid out on the table for us. Who can argue with the expert? - AWr-c Mar 13, 2008
I started this topic not being so fond of Alexander Pope. Boy, was I wrong! After reading the essay, I think Pope most definitely has the right to be arrogant. He is a genius. When I think about it now, the fact that he was 21 blows my mind away. But Pope obviously knew he was brilliant. I am thoroughly impressed with Pope's creation of "quotable couplets" that are still famous today! He has crafted so many coined phrases filled with wisdom. He demonstrates his ideas in his poem. For example, in lines 363-373, Pope illustrates the sounds he talks about in each of the lines. He isn't all talk, he practices what he preaches. Pope, indeed, is the master of the heroic couplet. I judged him in the first piece that I read from this essay, and I definitely see that I was wrong. Pope deserves respect. It's easy to question, "Well, who does he think he is?" But Pope knows what he's talking about, and we can learn a great deal from it. - KGa-c Mar 13, 2008
is Pope arrogant? YES. 100%. He is only 21 years old. 21. and he is basically telling all of those people of the time that they are doing stuff wrong. Br. Tom told us that a lot of people were appauled or disturbed by his writing and thoughts, but i guess after getting over his arrogant persona and inexperienced age, he actually makes some valid points. I think that his arrogance was a little mistake, in offending others. But, at the same time, his arrogance and his assurance in himself helped give him a little credibility. so, once we get past his arrogance, we can see what he is saying is smart and we can get something out of it. - MFi-c Mar 13, 2008
Yes, Pope may be 21 years old, but that doesn't mean he can't make valid points. I'm sure we all know people that much older than us, but you know that you probrably know things that they probrably don't. This might be Pope's case. I think the way in which he phrases things makes him come off as arrogant. He could have chosen to to say things in a more polite manner, but maybe he is compensating for his young age. He may have thought that no one would want to listen to what he had to say if he didn't come off as strong. When people have something that could take away from what people think of them, they try to figure out ways to make up for it. Arrogance is Pope's answer. I think he could have gotten the same points across in a different matter, but if he hadn't been arrogant he may not have gotten people's attentions and they may have never read his view points.- aja-c Mar 13, 2008
Did anyone else get the impression of Pope being presumptuous? Does he have a right to be?
-
He's more than a little full of himself. He's completely full of himself. He basically told us in part one that we have no right to judge poetry because we are stupid. By doing that, he has attempted to shut down any criticism of his essay/poem. His complex style showed his self-centeredness, implying something like "Look how much smarter I am than you! I'm writing in a way you could never use or understand, so praise me! PRAISE ME!"
The thing is, he sort of has a right to be so full of himself. People have said that he was a natural poet and writer, as well as a genius. I saw that through this poem/essay. I do not know of anyone who can write 700+ lines in the same meter and in constantly rhyming couplets and understand what he or she is doing.-
I absolutely think Pope is full of himself. In class today, we discussed how young he was (in his early twenties) when he wrote the essay, and yet he criticizes other "young" readers for being pretentious enough to think that they have the right to judge someone else's work. It certainly takes a pretty conceited person to say that, and I have no doubt that Pope was full of himself. JHe, I'm not sure I agree with you entirely; I don't think that Pope has some divine right to be pretentious just because people claimed he was some kind of genius. I have no doubt in my mind that Pope was extremely intelligent. It becomes very obvious just how bright he was when one reads the essay. However, I still don't think he has the right to tell other people not to judge when he is technically just as inexperienced as some of the people he is criticizing.
This still doesn't negate the fact that I think the essay was an extremely well-written and intelligent piece of literature.
-
I agree that, in many parts of the essay, Alexander Pope sounded extremely arrogant. Like all of you said, he was 21 when he wrote the essay, which seems just a little young to be analyzing wit, nature, and the bigger parts of life that affect all people. I was just wondering, but comparing him to a 21-year-old today, which would be a junior/senior in college, he talks as though he is much older, much more learned, and much more experienced when he's only been around for two decades! Half of me thinks that he is trying to talk as greater philosophers before him did, yet it was very natural to them. The way he speaks calls attention to himself in great amounts, not to mention he was trying to inflate the importance of the topic in his essay. I, too, don't think that he has the right to tell other people that they can or cannot analyze and judge. -
I agree with John, Pope really is completely full of himself. I mean sure he is a brilliant young man who can write poems like this, but still he is critcizing critics, that's hypocrisy. I think he does deserve the ability to do this because he is demonstrating that he can criticize and write good poetry at the same time in this essay. I just think that if he had more perspective or maybe self-control, then he would be above stooping down to the critics level and point his finger back and make fun of them. It all seems kind of like playground namecalling in a sophisticated, 18th century poetic kind of way.-
Although, I don't completely agree with everything that I've read thus far in the essay (or really understood everything), I think Pope's ideas were similar to those of his time. He lived during the time of enlightenment where nature was believed to rule reason. Although, some disagreed with his writings, I'm sure that there were many people who agreed with what he was saying otherwise we would not be reading this in class. Much of what he says is not wrong, we just misinterpret it as conceited because he says it in a very poetic way making it appear like he is insulting the reader. However, he makes good points when he says that good poets and critics are rare. Also, there is a lot of ideologies from the enlightenment found in the essay like nature makes no mistakes and rules are discovered not created. I just don't see why people think he is conceited because he hasn't said anything that insulting.
-
Pope is being a little presumptuous, but he kind of has to be. At the time that he wrote this, he was a 21 year old nobody who was looking to garner some press in literature circles; what better way is there to gain attention by being inflammatory. He wrote the way he did to rile people up and get them talking about him. I hate to do this, but in a way it is comparable to the rap feuds of the 20th century: when there is an up-n-coming rapper, one of the best ways for him to get his name out is by feuding or dissing a famous rapper. Doing this gets him mentioned in one of the famous rapper's songs, which gets him press and name recognition. The same concept is behind Pope's critique of writing of the day: he may not have the experience or credentials many of the writer's he is bashing do, but by attacking them he is at least getting his name on the radar.
-
I would definitely agree that Pope is being slightly arrogant. When I was reading Part I on my own, I was getting pretty confused because he seemed to be judging and yet condemning those who judge at the same time. At first I doubted that I had even interpreted it correctly, but then we went over it in class. Then, when Brother Tom told us that he was only twenty-one years old when he wrote this poem, I grew even more confused. Who is he to say all this? He always mentions good poetry and good criticism, but through that, he is inevitably judging them. I almost wanted to throw his own words back at him!
We discussed this in class a bit, and Brother Tom said that Pope realized that by writing this, Pope knew he was going to ignite a reaction. But Brother Tom suggested that maybe that was what Pope was looking for. What do you guys think about that? Did Pope write this "Essay" looking for the backlash? -
When arguing that Pope is an arrogant hippocrite, as many of you are doing, how can his age be a factor at all? Is his age the subject of the poem? Does age really affect his perception of poetry in the world? Is there a rule that says, "Unless you are thirty, you cannot comment on wrongdoing in the world"? The answer to all of these is no. Sure, his age might affect how he says things, but not what he says, nor does it have anything to do with the argument he is making. Pope isn't really arrogant, just annoyingly (to some people) right. Think about some people considered "arrogant" in today's world: the Pope (as in Benedict XVI not our author) for comments about the shortcomings of other religions, Bill Belichick for his handling of the press, Rush Limbaugh for strong, inflammatory arguments. These people aren't really arrogant, just right. They come across as arrogant because they aren't afraid to be different, strong, and at times inflammatory with what they say. I believe in that way Pope is very similar to them.
Dsu's example of an up and coming rapper is absolutely absurd. Nowhere does he diss anyone in particular. Also, what do experience and credentials have anything to do with making a clever observation about society? Could a young person not make a correct observation about his surroundings? -
Oh yeah, he's totally full of himself. He's young and probably not all that experienced, but he must have something to back him up because he was highly acclaimed and very well-known as a writer. He deals out a lot of insults, but he's pretty witty. And like John said, Pope has good reason to be conceited. He is a genius, he has incredible wit and strong ideas, and seriously it has to be difficult to write 700 lines in constant rhyme. I find it challenging to think of rhymes for poems that are over 20 lines, and he's basically a rockstar with it and never breaks form or anything. And he's not writing about poetic topics; he's writing an essay in poem form--that's got to be more difficult to rhyme. -
I think at this point, Pope doesn't really have anything to lose. He is the rookie and he's trying to make something of himself to the world of poetry. And if that's what he was looking for, then he definitely got the attention he deserved. He was arrogant in writing this, but I think this poem is credited also for his incredible poetic skill at such a young age. He needed something that was going to grab people's attention if he was to be put on the map, and what better way to grab a person's attention than to criticize him?
-
I do think that Pope was arrogant in writing this poem. PSp mentioned that his age isn't that important and that is shouldn't make a difference. I agree that although he was young that doesn't mean that he didn't have anything valuable or wise to say. I think it is just surprising that this was his first recognized work. He appears to be very full of himself not because he was young, but because he was not experienced. It shows that he was very confident in himself if he was willing to proclaim such bold ideas about what makes a good critic and poet while he was not known for being either. You have to be very sure of yourself if you are going to criticize famous poets and critics who are well known for their abilities. I was wondering whether he was trying to catch all of the attention that he did with this poem. Maybe he never meant for so many people to read his poem. It seems unlikely, but is it possible that he was just writing down what he thought and not meaning to announce them to large numbers of readers? If he truly wanted to gain attention by writing this essay styled poem it just makes him seem more arrogant. He was a genius and he knew it. -
I do see Pope as arrogant, and we discussed in class the other day how he did or did not establish a right for himself to write in the manner he does. But when all is [written] and done, I think he has a right to write how he does. After all, his work is honorable, and many famous "quotable couplets" resulted from it even. Instead of saying, "he is only 21 years old and acts as if he has authority . . .," we can say "he is only 21 and can write like this -- wow!" I do see his work as impressive because it is lengthy, but clever, and has various allusions in it. Both the substance and the style could only be crafted by someone with intelligence and skill. What I noticed especially was that this essay / poem (which is a feat in itself) is a good example of rhyming that has a purpose and grasps the readers' attention -- instead of making them 'fall asleep,' as Pope said himself, with expected rhyme. Thus, the piece exhibits true talent. I found the poem a little difficult to read myself, but that was only because good diction and creativity were combined with difficulty.-
Pope does come off as if he is a little arrogant, but I think it is just the nature of the way he is writing. His use of the couplet makes it seems as if he is very confident, having the strong rhyme every two lines I think makes it seem a little more arrogant than it actually is. Also I don't see how this essay could be good if he didn't come off as arrogant. If he wasn't sure of himself, and a little bit presumptuous then the essay would have been a waste of space. Besides he really is a good writer, and probably deserves to be. I agree with DSu, he probably just wanted to get noticed, and the easiest way to get ahead is to be pushy, and sure of yourself. -
Let's be honest here and admit that we're all a little arogant. It's part of being young that we all have a certain arrogance and probably think that we're authorities on things that we're probably not authorities on at all. Pope was just a little older than us, but I believe that we all share somewhat in his arrogance. I think more that he wasn't afraid to speak his exact opinion unlike perhaps an older person who might think to edit himself a little bit and not be as daring or controversial. I think what he was doing was saying something that had to be said because he was right that in order to be a critic one must first be a great author. Still, by being critical or critics, he is himself being a critic and what gives him the right to do that? I know he goes off in the essay and explains what he believes qualifies him, but I still find him to be a bit of a hypocrite. I just feel like his very own definition of what a critic should be stripped him of the right to be a critic because few truly master a craft and such a young age and there is no way Pope had already mastered his craft.-
I, like everyone else, think that Pope is extremely arrogant throughout his essay. I agree with Kho, he seems very judgmental considering what his entire essay is about. I can see where you are coming from sfa, that many famous quotes came from his writing, which is amazing at such a young age, but at the time how was he supposed to know how successful this work would be. It seems like he thought highly of himself before he even wrote this essay which kind of annoyed me. I thought that his essay was interesting and got important points across but I don't understand how confident he could be that this work was going to bring him so much fame or how he knew he would have readers quoting his work years and years after he died. -
I wonder if the rest of Pope's writings sounded as arrogant as this one did. Some how, I doubt they did. When Pope wrote this, he was young. If he had written his ideas in a format that was less dramatic, I dont think that others would have taken him seriously. Others would say that he is young and question what right he had to say these kinds of things about more experienced writers. When these othere people read his essay, they were probably outraged at Pope's tone. And then they would go to their friends and colleagues and make a fuss about it. Then these friends and colleagues would have to read it for themselves. I am sure this piece circulated quite quickly in a short period of time. Whether others like and agreed with him or not, Pope's work and name were made known. I am sure that his next work that was published was read widely because people were curious to see what he was going to say this time.
-
As I have previously stated, Pope isn't arrogant, just right (wouldn't the phrase "not arrogant, just right" be a perfect bumper sticker?). And he is not hypocritical, as kri suggests. How is there "no way Pope had already mastered his craft"? Did you not read the poem? If you had never been told his age you never would have said that. He has clearly mastered his craft, anyone with the ability to read can see that, and thus he is not a hypocrite.
And kfr, confidence need not come before results, as you say "how was he supposed to know how successful this work would be" and "I don't understand how confident he could be that this work was going to bring him so much fame or how he knew he would have readers quoting his work years and years after he died." Maybe he wasn't aware of how successful the essay would be, but that is beside the point. He was confident that the work was good, and that's all he needed. Think about it; when a football team gets pumped up for a game, do they say, "Maybe we'll win, who knows since we haven't proven ourselves yet."? No they don't and why can the same theory not apply with poets as well? Also, when you say, "It seems like he thought highly of himself before he even wrote this essay which kind of annoyed me" you are annoyed by the very quality that made this work good. Would it have been good without confidence and brovado? Not really, he wouldn't have been able to say anything with that oomph that he needed. It would have been filled with the weak "I think"s and the "Maybe"s.
And to those who say that he was just trying to get attention...you may be right, in a way. Aren't all poets trying to get attention and notoriety (Emily Dickinson aside)? If he wasn't, what would be the point to writing an essay on criticism? Why is it a fault to want to have your work read. It doesn't make him arrogant, it doesn't make him a hypocrite, it makes him a normal poet with something to say. Anyone who criticizes society as he sees it wants to get his work read by the most people so he can have the most impact. I do not get how wanting notoriety and being arrogant are related at all. With that twisted logic, you could say Robert Frost was arrogant for choosing the road less traveled.-
It's funny because my mom teases me and my 21 year old brother sometimes that we are too full of ourselves because we think that we can accomplish anything and do anything with our life. Well, I can bet that Pope was the same way. Maybe he didn't think that dream of skydiving or anything, but he believed in his opinions of criticism and felt that he had the right and the ability to publish his essay. Is it arrogance? I think partially it might be, but I believe that we have the right to say what we believe. I also think that he knew he was going to be receiving a whole slew of criticism, ironically, but that is part of the effect of publishing your work. Yes, I do think he approached the topic a little head strong, but I also give him props for saying what he believes. -
Ptr brings up a great point on this issue. He says "I believe that we have the right to say what we believe." Exactly right. Wasn't Pope merely stating what he believed to be true? Arrogance comes when you are overly confident to the point where you think you are better than others when you really are not. Pope's obvious writing skill gives him the right to say what he believes, no matter how inflammatory it might be. He doesn't really even attack a specific person.
Honestly, Pope was soft compared to what some writers have done. Take Catullus for example. In his poem 36 (for some reason the romans numbered their poems instead of entitling them) he humorously berates the work of another poet, Volusius. He actually calls this poet's work (to put it nicely) "papyrus droppings" (though a more accurate translation would be slightly more profane and add bathroom humor to this topic, I will spare you all). In the sixth century B.C., there was actually a poet called Hipponax whose poems were so cruel and arrogant that the subjects of his poems hanged themselves. Pope's essay is not arrogant, just confident and right. -
First of all, there is no doubt in my mind that Pope is a brilliant writer. When Brother Tom mentioned that Pope was only 21 years old when he wrote this "Essay on Criticism," my jaw literally dropped. Not to put down young writers, but his writing is so mature, witty, and quotable that I just assumed it was an older man's words. Wow, was I wrong!
Anyways, I did pick up on Pope's extreme confidence in his writing abilities (I found his words to be more witty/entertaining than arrogant per se...but that's just me). However, next to line 67 I did write in my notes: "What give you the right to criticize, Pope? Who are you??" So maybe he did get to me sometimes..
Overall, it is a tough call because some of you seem turned-off by Pope's "arrogance." I, however, find it to be challenging and entertaining; I was not offended by his words. Obviously Pope has a right to say these things because he knows what he's talking about! Who could argue with him? He seems to have everything laid out on the table for us. Who can argue with the expert? -
I started this topic not being so fond of Alexander Pope. Boy, was I wrong! After reading the essay, I think Pope most definitely has the right to be arrogant. He is a genius. When I think about it now, the fact that he was 21 blows my mind away. But Pope obviously knew he was brilliant. I am thoroughly impressed with Pope's creation of "quotable couplets" that are still famous today! He has crafted so many coined phrases filled with wisdom. He demonstrates his ideas in his poem. For example, in lines 363-373, Pope illustrates the sounds he talks about in each of the lines. He isn't all talk, he practices what he preaches. Pope, indeed, is the master of the heroic couplet. I judged him in the first piece that I read from this essay, and I definitely see that I was wrong. Pope deserves respect. It's easy to question, "Well, who does he think he is?" But Pope knows what he's talking about, and we can learn a great deal from it.
-
is Pope arrogant? YES. 100%. He is only 21 years old. 21. and he is basically telling all of those people of the time that they are doing stuff wrong. Br. Tom told us that a lot of people were appauled or disturbed by his writing and thoughts, but i guess after getting over his arrogant persona and inexperienced age, he actually makes some valid points. I think that his arrogance was a little mistake, in offending others. But, at the same time, his arrogance and his assurance in himself helped give him a little credibility. so, once we get past his arrogance, we can see what he is saying is smart and we can get something out of it.
-
Yes, Pope may be 21 years old, but that doesn't mean he can't make valid points. I'm sure we all know people that much older than us, but you know that you probrably know things that they probrably don't. This might be Pope's case. I think the way in which he phrases things makes him come off as arrogant. He could have chosen to to say things in a more polite manner, but maybe he is compensating for his young age. He may have thought that no one would want to listen to what he had to say if he didn't come off as strong. When people have something that could take away from what people think of them, they try to figure out ways to make up for it. Arrogance is Pope's answer. I think he could have gotten the same points across in a different matter, but if he hadn't been arrogant he may not have gotten people's attentions and they may have never read his view points.-